String Multiplier Poker Demo - Final Version 99.1% RTP

Quote: gordonm888

Here's my best win so far. You can see that I was down to $2,360, so I really needed this, lol. Then, five hands later, I got quad 10s with a 4X multiplier!

Nice win, gordonm888. Thanks for sharing.

Lot of fun. Played after reading the first post. Got killed right away. Came back and read and only then realized that improvements came from the bottom hand. I would have never held the Ah until I read this thread. It needs an explanation or an animation sequence when the game is idle or something.

Draw https://imgur.com/a/h7kQxUl

Thanks BTLWI. I think providing the new player with a clear and concise explanation of how to play the game is the biggest hurdle for most of my games. Most people don’t want to take the time to read the rules we provide in the information button on each game and most want to jump in and play right away. Our games are complex and different than traditional poker games so it does take the player some time and trial and error before understanding our concepts. I do feel that most people understand the games after a short time of playing but they have to be willing to put some time in first.


In your example, I would also keep the ace. To me, when I have a chance at a higher multiplier and get a guaranteed win I’ll keep the other card to upgrade the string hand. I don’t really pay attention to this unless I can get a three of a kind or higher in the string hand. Once I’m close and I get a dealt win in the main hand, I start taking notice of the other cards I would typically discard.

@RealizeGaming - what kind of laws are keeping you from just allowing people to buy credits for the websites you run already, and just have it as a game and not a gambling game per se

Quote: heatmap

@RealizeGaming - what kind of laws are keeping you from just allowing people to buy credits for the websites you run already, and just have it as a game and not a gambling game per se

Agree. I think this could make a fun game on the Candy Crish model wear you have to wait for or buy more credits.

Quote: heatmap

@RealizeGaming - what kind of laws are keeping you from just allowing people to buy credits for the websites you run already, and just have it as a game and not a gambling game per se

heatmap, that is a really good question. I'm not sure if I could do it on a website or not and I would have to look into the legalities of it. I could do it as an app and create an entire video poker suite of my games which would be around 10 if I include some of the multi-hand games. I don't think there is anything stopping me from creating an app and having it setup as a social game. There are plenty of those types of games on the market now where you are given free credits every few hours and you can always purchase more when you need to. The biggest issue would be the cost to create the app. I've had a number of people/companies wanting to work with me on an app, but the upfront cost for me was extremely expensive for just one game. Another thing to think about is determining how much the game will make and how long it will take to get my initial investment back. Most people aren't very willing to show you what some of their apps make, so it becomes very risky.


With all that being said, I'm still very optimistic my games will end up as real money games in online and land based casinos. That has been my goal since the very first day I started doing this and I will continue working to make that happen.

I’m enjoying the game but the string hand algorithm needs work. It picks suboptimal cards not infrequently. It especially happens with flushes and not replacing cards more likely to lead to straight flushes.

Quote: unJon

I’m enjoying the game but the string hand algorithm needs work. It picks suboptimal cards not infrequently. It especially happens with flushes and not replacing cards more likely to lead to straight flushes.

RG.. A few of us had mentioned this in this thread but I don't recall you commenting on it other than saying you thought about letting people pick their own cards. Is this something that be changed or is it too far into the development to have it corrected. if I were to play it for real money this would be a real turn off for me. I imagine it would be the same with others as well.

Quote: GWAE

RG.. A few of us had mentioned this in this thread but I don't recall you commenting on it other than saying you thought about letting people pick their own cards. Is this something that be changed or is it too far into the development to have it corrected. if I were to play it for real money this would be a real turn off for me. I imagine it would be the same with others as well.

GWAE and unJon,

Let me talk to my group to see what it would take to adjust the logic for flush to straight flushes when upgrading the string hand. If we are able to pinpoint the exact problem, I think we can adjust it. If I'm correct, we need to look specifically at upgrading a suit but also paying more attention to the rank that is chosen. The string may be upgrading to a flush or trying to build a flush, but we need to also consider the logic that will put the player in the best situation for a bigger multiplier. Let me get back to everyone on this.

Quote: RealizeGaming

GWAE and unJon,

Let me talk to my group to see what it would take to adjust the logic for flush to straight flushes when upgrading the string hand. If we are able to pinpoint the exact problem, I think we can adjust it. If I'm correct, we need to look specifically at upgrading a suit but also paying more attention to the rank that is chosen. The string may be upgrading to a flush or trying to build a flush, but we need to also consider the logic that will put the player in the best situation for a bigger multiplier. Let me get back to everyone on this.

That’s right. If someone tells me how to post pics from my iPhone I’ll try to take some of things I think are errors.

Plus eliminate replacing the exact same card for the exact same card, which the program does.

I’d also be interested in knowing if better EV to have three of a kind multiplier or a pair multiplier with and open ended straight flush or royal draw. The program seems to pick the three of a kind every time. My gut says it may be better to have KcQcKd than KcKsKd. Not sure though.

Here are some specific errors I've seen.

1. Top hand holds 4h6h8h. Bottom hand holds KhKc. Hand should hold that bonus. Instead it promoted the Kh , making less value.

2. Top hand holds KhQhJc. Bottom hand holds KcKh. Bonus should hold, instead replacing Kh with Kc for less value.

3. Top hand holds KhJcTh. Bottom hand holds QhQs. Qh rises, but replaces Kh instead of Th to make the straight, for less value.

4. Top hand contains 4h6h8h. Bottom hand promotes 9h AND REMOVES 8h. 2 errors there, imo, though related. A) not considering straight potential of other cards when removing the 8. B) should remove either of the other cards if it's going to substitute at all, as 986 is equal to 864 in straight or SF potential.

Here's one:

7c, 3d, 10s

1.) I forget the exact cards in the winning hand, but inexplicably, it replaced the 3d with a 5c when it could have replaced it with a 6c, thereby giving two outs to the Straight-Flush on the top hand for the following hand. In other words, what ended up being:

7c, 5c, 10s

For the next hand should have been:

7c, 6c, 10s

There's absolutely no reason to favor the five over the six.

2.) I started with:

Ac, 5s, 6c

I forget the exact five cards of the finishing hand, but given the choice between replacing the 5d with a Kc, it instead replaced the Ac with a 4d!!!

Granted, that gives the 4x for the straight, but replacing the 5s with the Kc still would have given a 3x Flush AND would have set up a potential Qc on a following hand for the 50x Royal up top as well as a straight opportunity with any other queen.

3.) I started with:

Qc, 2h, 6h

The finishing five card hand:

Kh, Qs, Kc, Jd, Qd

It replaced the Qc with the Kh for the Flush, but it almost seems like it would be better to replace one of the hearts with Kc to set up a potential 50x Royal Flush up top needing only the Ac. Besides that, any Club would still give a Flush two hands later as well as any Ace/Jack giving a straight and the Jc for a potential SF.

It seems like the auto-chooser only thinks one hand into the future.

What is the 99.1% return predicated upon, by the way? You have to make the Optimal hold based on so many factors which can include:

-Base return of the 9/5 paytable
-Emphasis just on finishing with a WINNING hand (like Multi-Strike) in order to continue the multipliers
-Influence what the Streak Auto-Picker will do with the Three-Card hand, even though it doesn't always do what makes the most sense.*

*One example, though an example where it would do the right thing, is if you had:

Ac, Kc, 3h

And the five-card hand:

Jh, Jc, Qc, 5d, 4h

Obviously, you would want to hold Jh, Jc, Qc because it gives you both a winning hand AND a 50x multiplier going into the next hand. There may be other situations where the correct hold could be influenced both by probability of winning AND getting a particular card to the top...but if the Streak thing isn't going to make the best decision to begin with, then how do you factor that in?

With all due respect, the auto-holder is just really, really, bad. I really think the best thing to do is just let the player pick whatever card he or she wants if you can't get the auto-holder to perfection. Even if you do get it mathematically perfect, you're still going to irritate some people with it holding one card as opposed to the card they would like it to hold.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Here are some specific errors I've seen.

1. Top hand holds 4h6h8h. Bottom hand holds KhKc. Hand should hold that bonus. Instead it promoted the Kh , making less value.

2. Top hand holds KhQhJc. Bottom hand holds KcKh. Bonus should hold, instead replacing Kh with Kc for less value.

3. Top hand holds KhJcTh. Bottom hand holds QhQs. Qh rises, but replaces Kh instead of Th to make the straight, for less value.

4. Top hand contains 4h6h8h. Bottom hand promotes 9h AND REMOVES 8h. 2 errors there, imo, though related. A) not considering straight potential of other cards when removing the 8. B) should remove either of the other cards if it's going to substitute at all, as 986 is equal to 864 in straight or SF potential.

Just had one:

Too hand holds 3sKsAs. Bottom hand promotes 8s for 3s, killing a chance for a straight flush with 2s.

Quote: unJon

Just had one:

Too hand holds 3sKsAs. Bottom hand promotes 8s for 3s, killing a chance for a straight flush with 2s.

Here's another:

I had:

Ad, Qs, Ks

The bottom hand brings up Qc killing the QK SF/RF draw for the following hand on the top hand. For absolutely no reason whatsoever. If this were to happen in an actual casino, with actual money, no way I ever play this game again.

Quote: unJon

I’d also be interested in knowing if better EV to have three of a kind multiplier or a pair multiplier with and open ended straight flush or royal draw. The program seems to pick the three of a kind every time. My gut says it may be better to have KcQcKd than KcKsKd. Not sure though.

For the bonus multiplier:

I calculate that 3oak is better than pair with open-ended SF draw.

3oak vs pair with a Royal Draw is not as close. 3oak never improves, it always remains 3oak. Pair with a royal draw is tricky - because the cards you need for the royal are either Q,K A -and high cards such as Q,K,A occur more frequently in winning primary hands than low cards -because many winning hands result from drawing to high cards. Also, the royal draw (similar to the oe straight flush draw) will frequently upgrade to either a 3X Flush (or more rarely the 4x Straight) when the royal doesn't hit. Overall, I think a pair with Royal draw is better for the player

Having said that, I have no problem with the existing algorithm that always upgrades the bonus multiplier to the highest possible multiplier for the next hand. That is understandable and transparent to the player. Foregoing an upgrade to an "x5 3oak multiplier" in favor of a "x2 Pair multiplier" in order to preserve the Royal draw aspect of the bonus hand would create the feeling in most players that they got unfairly screwed by the game.

RealizeGaming,

I like you, so this is actually a difficult post to make:

General Observations

1. This basically plays like a particularly top-heavy penny slot machine. I did four different, "Sessions," each with the goal of getting to either $9,000 or up to $11,000, after making the first bet, I'd fail to ever even sniff $10,000 again.

2. The $5 + $20 bet is beyond the pale and completely unheard of in terms of what is essentially a single hand Video Poker game.

2a.) I think that some casinos might even agree with this perspective from a jackpot liability standpoint. For one example, consider $5 denomination Ultimate X. In the event a player makes a $50 total bet on single-handed, the best possible result is a dealt FH (DDB) followed by any kind of a Royal. In this case, $100 total is bet and the player wins $225 + $240,000 = $240,225 which is 2,402.25x the total amount of $100 bet between the two hands.

Even in triple-line $5 Ultimate X, a dealt Royal following a dealt FH would pay out $720,000, on a total bet of $150.

In the case of your game, if the casino offered a $5 denomination version, the total bet would be $125 with a possible pay of TWO MILLION DOLLARS+ with a dealt three-card Royal + RF and some other hands possible. That's 16,000x the total amount bet. There aren't many slot machines that even offer payouts that high relative to the bet amount...though there are a few.

In the case of this $1 denomination game, dealt three card Royal + RF on the main hand is still $400,000 won on a $25 total bet. Again, that's compared to $1 Ultimate X, three-hands, dealt FH + dealt Royal on the following hand for $144,000 which is $60 total bet and $30 per hand bet.

It's just a huge jackpot liability.

2b.) This seems like a really top-heavy game from the player perspective, too.

3.) It doesn't seem like the bonus offers any great benefit relative to the bet amount. My three best results during some 400+ hands were:

---$5 win + Quad Jacks with a 2x for $500 = $505 (barely 20x total bet)

---I won Thirteen Hands in a row and ended up with $455

$5 + $15 + $15 + $35 + $35 + $35 + $35 + $35 + $35 + $105 + $35 + $35 + $35

Which is only 18.2x the amount bet. Granted, that's better than the 3x I would have otherwise won on this particular string of hands, but I was down by so much at this point that it was barely helpful. It honestly didn't even really inspire any confidence in me for future hands.

---$195 total win, but I forget exactly how.

4.) I caught a FH without anything up top and then whiffed on the next hand. It's not fun to not even get 2-FOR-1 on a Full House.

5.) I don't see anyway you make everyone happy with the three-card hand other than letting people pick their own. However, as you pointed out, that's time-consuming, so the casino might not like it.

SUGGESTIONS:

1.) Simplify the game dramatically by allowing for multiple hands, but with the same Three-Card hand per initial bet. In other words, a pair would just stick and be 2x as long as the player kept winning base hands. One exception could be that the three cards will completely redraw if they are not a winning three-card hand. This change would also enable you to drop the bet to something other than $5 + $20. I'm not going to do the math on this one, but there might be a way to do it with a $5 + $5 bet if the multiplier hand cannot improve.

Another alternative would be to keep the same three-card hand, but allow the game to draw new three-card hands for the same, "Play," from a fresh deck and to replace the current three-card hand if the new one is better.

OR:

2.) I know you won't like this, but you can treat every game as one play rather than theoretically unlimited. If you do this, you could simply have the potential for HUGE multipliers:

Pair: 5x
Flush: 10x
Straight: 15x
Trips: 25x
Straight Flush: 50x
Mini Royal: 100x

(0.169412*5) + (0.049593*10) + (0.032579*15) + (0.002353*25) + (.001991 * 50) + (0.000181*100) = 2.00815 (Average Multiplier)

-You still have the jackpot liability issue to worry about, even more so, actually. However, the player will get a multiplier on about 25.6109% of all hands. More than that, any winning five-card hand with a multiplier is profitable for the player.

The player would be making a ten-credit bet, which is 2x the normal amount, and would have an average multiplier of 2.00815. Therefore, the return of a game would be changed as follows:

(Base Return * Average Multiplier)/2 = New Return

In the case of 9/6 DDB:

(.9898*2.00815)/2 = 0.993833435

The game would also come with zero changes to optimal strategy because there is no, "Streak," component and the player cannot influence the three-card hand.

Quote: gordonm888

For the bonus multiplier:

I calculate that 3oak is better than pair with open-ended SF draw.

3oak vs pair with a Royal Draw is not as close. 3oak never improves, it always remains 3oak. Pair with a royal draw is tricky - because the cards you need for the royal are either Q,K A -and high cards such as Q,K,A occur more frequently in winning primary hands than low cards -because many winning hands result from drawing to high cards. Also, the royal draw (similar to the oe straight flush draw) will frequently upgrade to either a 3X Flush (or more rarely the 4x Straight) when the royal doesn't hit. Overall, I think a pair with Royal draw is better for the player

Having said that, I have no problem with the existing algorithm that always upgrades the bonus multiplier to the highest possible multiplier for the next hand. That is understandable and transparent to the player. Foregoing an upgrade to an "x5 3oak multiplier" in favor of a "x2 Pair multiplier" in order to preserve the Royal draw aspect of the bonus hand would create the feeling in most players that they got unfairly screwed by the game.

I agree with your end part. say you had a pair with open ended royal flush. Next had would make a 3oak but it doesnt hold it. Your next 5 card hand is a royal. Now you are getting 2x instead of 3x. That would annoy people. I personally would keep the open ended royal flush for an outside shot of a 50k royal. I think the only way to satisfy everyone would be to either
1. Allow them to make their own decision as to what card to hold, but that would really slow the game down.
or
2. Make it all random. Maybe on the deal it could randomly highlight 1 position on the 5 card hand and 1 position on the 3 card hand and that card moved up there every hand. Even if it took a royal and made it a losing 3 card multiplier. I think it would add some craziness to the game and would probably allow them to up the multipliers some or make the bonus bet less expensive which I would be in favor of

Quote: beachbumbabs

Here are some specific errors I've seen.

1. Top hand holds 4h6h8h. Bottom hand holds KhKc. Hand should hold that bonus. Instead it promoted the Kh , making less value.

2. Top hand holds KhQhJc. Bottom hand holds KcKh. Bonus should hold, instead replacing Kh with Kc for less value.

3. Top hand holds KhJcTh. Bottom hand holds QhQs. Qh rises, but replaces Kh instead of Th to make the straight, for less value.

4. Top hand contains 4h6h8h. Bottom hand promotes 9h AND REMOVES 8h. 2 errors there, imo, though related. A) not considering straight potential of other cards when removing the 8. B) should remove either of the other cards if it's going to substitute at all, as 986 is equal to 864 in straight or SF potential.

Thanks babs.

1. I agree with what you are saying and we will look into it. I'm positive it is making this move because it is programed to work to upgrade the existing string hand to a higher value multiplier.

2. Another example where I see what your saying. The hand is keeping the straight intact but taking a step backward on the string hand because it is creating a gap in the potential straight flush. It is better to have the KhQhJc instead of replacing the Kh for the Kc. I think this was a hold over from our first build where placing a card into the hand added a plus one to the multiplier. Either way, I agree with you.

3. Agree.

4. Agree

Quote: Mission146

Here's one:

7c, 3d, 10s

1.) I forget the exact cards in the winning hand, but inexplicably, it replaced the 3d with a 5c when it could have replaced it with a 6c, thereby giving two outs to the Straight-Flush on the top hand for the following hand. In other words, what ended up being:

7c, 5c, 10s

For the next hand should have been:

7c, 6c, 10s

There's absolutely no reason to favor the five over the six.

2.) I started with:

Ac, 5s, 6c

I forget the exact five cards of the finishing hand, but given the choice between replacing the 5d with a Kc, it instead replaced the Ac with a 4d!!!

Granted, that gives the 4x for the straight, but replacing the 5s with the Kc still would have given a 3x Flush AND would have set up a potential Qc on a following hand for the 50x Royal up top as well as a straight opportunity with any other queen.

3.) I started with:

Qc, 2h, 6h

The finishing five card hand:

Kh, Qs, Kc, Jd, Qd

It replaced the Qc with the Kh for the Flush, but it almost seems like it would be better to replace one of the hearts with Kc to set up a potential 50x Royal Flush up top needing only the Ac. Besides that, any Club would still give a Flush two hands later as well as any Ace/Jack giving a straight and the Jc for a potential SF.

It seems like the auto-chooser only thinks one hand into the future.

What is the 99.1% return predicated upon, by the way? You have to make the Optimal hold based on so many factors which can include:

-Base return of the 9/5 paytable
-Emphasis just on finishing with a WINNING hand (like Multi-Strike) in order to continue the multipliers
-Influence what the Streak Auto-Picker will do with the Three-Card hand, even though it doesn't always do what makes the most sense.*

*One example, though an example where it would do the right thing, is if you had:

Ac, Kc, 3h

And the five-card hand:

Jh, Jc, Qc, 5d, 4h

Obviously, you would want to hold Jh, Jc, Qc because it gives you both a winning hand AND a 50x multiplier going into the next hand. There may be other situations where the correct hold could be influenced both by probability of winning AND getting a particular card to the top...but if the Streak thing isn't going to make the best decision to begin with, then how do you factor that in?

With all due respect, the auto-holder is just really, really, bad. I really think the best thing to do is just let the player pick whatever card he or she wants if you can't get the auto-holder to perfection. Even if you do get it mathematically perfect, you're still going to irritate some people with it holding one card as opposed to the card they would like it to hold.

You make a great point Mission146. The autopicker only thinks one pick into the future because the game requires you win in order to keep playing with the current built up string hand. The 99.1% return is based off of 1 billion simulations of the game using the DDB strategy and the programmed logic used by the autopicker. Click on the "I" button in the demo to see some more information about the return and if you have any other questions about it, please post them and we will try to get them answered for you.


I don't think the autopicker is that bad based on the game, although I do agree with the majority of player that some of the logic pertaining to flushes and straight flushes could be improved. I do like the idea of letting the player pick the cards and maybe that would be very doable, but I think players would only play it for real money if they had some experience with it. I don't think they would just be walking through the casino and take a chance on it because it would come across as too complicated for a new player.

Quote: Mission146

RealizeGaming,

I like you, so this is actually a difficult post to make:

General Observations

1. This basically plays like a particularly top-heavy penny slot machine. I did four different, "Sessions," each with the goal of getting to either $9,000 or up to $11,000, after making the first bet, I'd fail to ever even sniff $10,000 again.

2. The $5 + $20 bet is beyond the pale and completely unheard of in terms of what is essentially a single hand Video Poker game.

2a.) I think that some casinos might even agree with this perspective from a jackpot liability standpoint. For one example, consider $5 denomination Ultimate X. In the event a player makes a $50 total bet on single-handed, the best possible result is a dealt FH (DDB) followed by any kind of a Royal. In this case, $100 total is bet and the player wins $225 + $240,000 = $240,225 which is 2,402.25x the total amount of $100 bet between the two hands.

Even in triple-line $5 Ultimate X, a dealt Royal following a dealt FH would pay out $720,000, on a total bet of $150.

In the case of your game, if the casino offered a $5 denomination version, the total bet would be $125 with a possible pay of TWO MILLION DOLLARS+ with a dealt three-card Royal + RF and some other hands possible. That's 16,000x the total amount bet. There aren't many slot machines that even offer payouts that high relative to the bet amount...though there are a few.

In the case of this $1 denomination game, dealt three card Royal + RF on the main hand is still $400,000 won on a $25 total bet. Again, that's compared to $1 Ultimate X, three-hands, dealt FH + dealt Royal on the following hand for $144,000 which is $60 total bet and $30 per hand bet.

It's just a huge jackpot liability.

2b.) This seems like a really top-heavy game from the player perspective, too.

3.) It doesn't seem like the bonus offers any great benefit relative to the bet amount. My three best results during some 400+ hands were:

---$5 win + Quad Jacks with a 2x for $500 = $505 (barely 20x total bet)

---I won Thirteen Hands in a row and ended up with $455

$5 + $15 + $15 + $35 + $35 + $35 + $35 + $35 + $35 + $105 + $35 + $35 + $35

Which is only 18.2x the amount bet. Granted, that's better than the 3x I would have otherwise won on this particular string of hands, but I was down by so much at this point that it was barely helpful. It honestly didn't even really inspire any confidence in me for future hands.

---$195 total win, but I forget exactly how.

4.) I caught a FH without anything up top and then whiffed on the next hand. It's not fun to not even get 2-FOR-1 on a Full House.

5.) I don't see anyway you make everyone happy with the three-card hand other than letting people pick their own. However, as you pointed out, that's time-consuming, so the casino might not like it.

SUGGESTIONS:

1.) Simplify the game dramatically by allowing for multiple hands, but with the same Three-Card hand per initial bet. In other words, a pair would just stick and be 2x as long as the player kept winning base hands. One exception could be that the three cards will completely redraw if they are not a winning three-card hand. This change would also enable you to drop the bet to something other than $5 + $20. I'm not going to do the math on this one, but there might be a way to do it with a $5 + $5 bet if the multiplier hand cannot improve.

Another alternative would be to keep the same three-card hand, but allow the game to draw new three-card hands for the same, "Play," from a fresh deck and to replace the current three-card hand if the new one is better.

OR:

2.) I know you won't like this, but you can treat every game as one play rather than theoretically unlimited. If you do this, you could simply have the potential for HUGE multipliers:

Pair: 5x
Flush: 10x
Straight: 15x
Trips: 25x
Straight Flush: 50x
Mini Royal: 100x

(0.169412*5) + (0.049593*10) + (0.032579*15) + (0.002353*25) + (.001991 * 50) + (0.000181*100) = 2.00815 (Average Multiplier)

-You still have the jackpot liability issue to worry about, even more so, actually. However, the player will get a multiplier on about 25.6109% of all hands. More than that, any winning five-card hand with a multiplier is profitable for the player.

The player would be making a ten-credit bet, which is 2x the normal amount, and would have an average multiplier of 2.00815. Therefore, the return of a game would be changed as follows:

(Base Return * Average Multiplier)/2 = New Return

In the case of 9/6 DDB:

(.9898*2.00815)/2 = 0.993833435

The game would also come with zero changes to optimal strategy because there is no, "Streak," component and the player cannot influence the three-card hand.

Mission148, no need to feel bad about posting your thoughts. I seriously have no problems with anyone's thoughts and feedback and I encourage people to post them because it can only help me in the long run.

I understand what you are saying about the jackpot liability. It may be unrealistic to expect a casino to be willing to payout such a high amount. The current math model we use for the game allows the game to be very high risk-high reward, but it could be adjusted very easily to make it a "safer" game for the casino. We had one version of the game where the pair didn't reward a multiplier and the multipliers we used were much lower. We also had a very low multiplier for the dealt royal and the build up royal. These arrangements helped us to get the game down to a much smaller starting wager and lowered the maximum jackpot. My point is we have a starting point that can be adjusted in a number of ways to meet any desired RTP. We've had a number of meetings with companies who told us they are not concerned with the math being perfect as long as we have some basis for what we are doing. The companies told us they have a number of dedicated mathematicians who can do all that work. I agree because we have a number of different models we can use with the game.


Your suggestions:

1. We have played around with this concept and it would definitely work as you stated. Providing the extra hands without requiring a wager would allow us to drop the initial wager down to a more player friendly version. Keeping the same dealt string hand for the entire round without allowing the game to upgrade it would also be another way to make things work.


2. Another great thought that we talked about. I do like this option because it keeps the high multipliers and lowers the initial wager to the player. It kind of proves that there are a number of math models that could be used to make the game work. Unfortunately, there may be way too many potential models that could be used.


*I'm not worried about removing the "streak" component of the game, even though I actually like it because it's different. Our next game called Lightning Poker takes advantage of that concept!

*Thanks for taking the time to respond. I do appreciate it.

Quote: RealizeGaming

You make a great point Mission146. The autopicker only thinks one pick into the future because the game requires you win in order to keep playing with the current built up string hand. The 99.1% return is based off of 1 billion simulations of the game using the DDB strategy and the programmed logic used by the autopicker. Click on the "I" button in the demo to see some more information about the return and if you have any other questions about it, please post them and we will try to get them answered for you.

Thanks for answering that! When it comes to the 99.1% return, then, does the return not assume that a player with As Ks 7h up top on a five card hand such as:

Jh Js Qs 5d 7h

Would hold JJQ in order to get the 50x multiplier for the following hand? I don't know what DDB strategy the simulation is using, but it occurs to me that it might not account for certain situations in which holding a card that would otherwise make no sense (to go to the top hand) makes sense. It also may not account for those borderline situations where it is better to maximize probability of winning over expected return.

For example, on a hand such as:

6s Jc 2d 3d 5d

On a certain multiplier, would Jc not become a better hold than 2-3-5 given the much greater probability of catching ANY winning hand holding the Jack and then getting the multiplier again for another hand, or perhaps multiple additional hands? Did the simulation consider that?

Quote:

I don't think the autopicker is that bad based on the game, although I do agree with the majority of player that some of the logic pertaining to flushes and straight flushes could be improved. I do like the idea of letting the player pick the cards and maybe that would be very doable, but I think players would only play it for real money if they had some experience with it. I don't think they would just be walking through the casino and take a chance on it because it would come across as too complicated for a new player.

If it takes away cards that set up three-card Royal draws for absolutely no reason, unfortunately, that's not very good.

You'd be surprised what people would play even though they have no idea what they are doing. I have seen some baffling holds just on regular Video Poker.

Quote: RealizeGaming

Mission148, no need to feel bad about posting your thoughts. I seriously have no problems with anyone's thoughts and feedback and I encourage people to post them because it can only help me in the long run.

Awesome, thanks! I'm glad there are no hard feelings. I generally enjoy the vast majority of your games and you take feedback extremely well! Multidraw Poker is terrific!

Quote:

I understand what you are saying about the jackpot liability. It may be unrealistic to expect a casino to be willing to payout such a high amount. The current math model we use for the game allows the game to be very high risk-high reward, but it could be adjusted very easily to make it a "safer" game for the casino. We had one version of the game where the pair didn't reward a multiplier and the multipliers we used were much lower. We also had a very low multiplier for the dealt royal and the build up royal. These arrangements helped us to get the game down to a much smaller starting wager and lowered the maximum jackpot. My point is we have a starting point that can be adjusted in a number of ways to meet any desired RTP. We've had a number of meetings with companies who told us they are not concerned with the math being perfect as long as we have some basis for what we are doing. The companies told us they have a number of dedicated mathematicians who can do all that work. I agree because we have a number of different models we can use with the game.

The only problem is that the casinos are generally risk-averse, especially more local ones. That's why you have Craps tables with Table Limits of $1,000. In terms of VP & Slots, the volatility is on both sides. The casinos want to see the machines just print money and they get scared when they don't, especially if they don't know that the game will draw enough action to get the casino into the, "Long Run." Imagine the first play was a dealt three-card Royal that eventually led to a five-card Royal, at a 1% House Edge, it takes 1.6 Million hands at the expected loss to make up for that. That's 2,000 playing hours at 800 HPH, which can take greater or lesser amounts of actual hours to hit depending on how popular the game is.

I definitely would have the math ready for a, "Safer," version if I was going to present this to a casino. Of course, the only way to really do that would be to get rid of the 100x multiplier on the dealt three-card royal, which my understanding is you wanted to keep.

I don't like the idea of the pair not rewarding a multiplier because now your hit rate for any multiplier drops below 10%. A player could go many hands without hitting any multipliers and, when they finally do, the multipliers may not help a whole lot. Whatever the gimmick is on a game, I definitely think it should be something that the player gets to have the opportunity to experience as much as possible.

I don't dislike the 50x or 100x multipliers, per se. I actually like them, just not necessarily in conjunction with the theoretically unlimited number of hands in a row they could be played on.

Quote:

Your suggestions:

1. We have played around with this concept and it would definitely work as you stated. Providing the extra hands without requiring a wager would allow us to drop the initial wager down to a more player friendly version. Keeping the same dealt string hand for the entire round without allowing the game to upgrade it would also be another way to make things work.


2. Another great thought that we talked about. I do like this option because it keeps the high multipliers and lowers the initial wager to the player. It kind of proves that there are a number of math models that could be used to make the game work. Unfortunately, there may be way too many potential models that could be used.


*I'm not worried about removing the "streak" component of the game, even though I actually like it because it's different. Our next game called Lightning Poker takes advantage of that concept!

*Thanks for taking the time to respond. I do appreciate it.

1.) Sweet! I honestly think it eliminates two headaches:

-Getting the three-card string feature to be optimal

AND

-The fact that, even if Optimal, the three-card string feature might put a new card up there that the player doesn't like.

2.) Thanks! I don't think that there are too many potential models, it's really just a question of whether or not you want to prioritize:

-High Multipliers
-Lower Bet Amounts
-One Bet Paying for Multiple Hands
-Multiplier Frequency
-Whether or not the Three-Card Hand can Improve

So, really, you're talking about the difference between entirely different games, but that's a good thing. More games are better than fewer games and, just like they did with games such as Ultimate X (and other initial multiplier games) you can take the same basic concept and apply it to multiple entirely new games.

Super Times Pay and Hot Roll Poker, for instance, are really the same fundamental thing, but they are two totally different games.

I think the first option gets the base bet under control without eliminating the, "Streak," option. My ultimate problem with the current version is that the probability of a net losing play is just entirely too high, it's tough to even win 2x the bet.

You're welcome, it's always fun talking with you!

Quote: Mission146

Thanks for answering that! When it comes to the 99.1% return, then, does the return not assume that a player with As Ks 7h up top on a five card hand such as:

Jh Js Qs 5d 7h

Would hold JJQ in order to get the 50x multiplier for the following hand? I don't know what DDB strategy the simulation is using, but it occurs to me that it might not account for certain situations in which holding a card that would otherwise make no sense (to go to the top hand) makes sense. It also may not account for those borderline situations where it is better to maximize probability of winning over expected return.

For example, on a hand such as:

6s Jc 2d 3d 5d

On a certain multiplier, would Jc not become a better hold than 2-3-5 given the much greater probability of catching ANY winning hand holding the Jack and then getting the multiplier again for another hand, or perhaps multiple additional hands? Did the simulation consider that?


If it takes away cards that set up three-card Royal draws for absolutely no reason, unfortunately, that's not very good.

You'd be surprised what people would play even though they have no idea what they are doing. I have seen some baffling holds just on regular Video Poker.

Mission148,

I'll try to answer this the best I can. My math guys may be able to correct me if I'm saying the wrong things here. Since the RTP was based on a billion simulations, the five card hand follows the strategy for DDB and will hold only those cards that would be held if playing a regular five card game. It doesn't take into consideration what other cards could/should be held to improve the string hand because it only sees one hand in the future and follows the understanding that it must win in the main hand in order to upgrade or use the string hand. I don't have the correct answer for whether or not it should look at the other cards if the hand is already a winning hand, but from previous conversations with players most people will look at the other cards in the hand if they have a guaranteed win. The autopicker doesn't do that.

Quote: Mission146

2.) Thanks! I don't think that there are too many potential models, it's really just a question of whether or not you want to prioritize:

-High Multipliers
-Lower Bet Amounts
-One Bet Paying for Multiple Hands
-Multiplier Frequency
-Whether or not the Three-Card Hand can Improve

I think you pretty much covered the majority of options for the game and I can see any of these working very well with the game. It goes back to my original thought that the game can be adjusted in a number of ways. I could also see some company taking the concept of the game and offering all these various options very similar to what MultiStrike did with their game. The game still played the base game with the concept of winning to go to the next round, but they added a number of features to the game to satisfy a wide range of players.

Quote: RealizeGaming

Mission148,

I'll try to answer this the best I can. My math guys may be able to correct me if I'm saying the wrong things here. Since the RTP was based on a billion simulations, the five card hand follows the strategy for DDB and will hold only those cards that would be held if playing a regular five card game. It doesn't take into consideration what other cards could/should be held to improve the string hand because it only sees one hand in the future and follows the understanding that it must win in the main hand in order to upgrade or use the string hand. I don't have the correct answer for whether or not it should look at the other cards if the hand is already a winning hand, but from previous conversations with players most people will look at the other cards in the hand if they have a guaranteed win. The autopicker doesn't do that.

I would say that there are a few VP games upon which the best hold for the base game is not the best hold for a particular variation, and this one would be no exception. Ultimately, it really just makes 99.1% a minimum case Optimal RTP.

We have an update to the game based on some of the early feedback regarding which cards are used to upgrade the string hand. Babs and LoquaciousMoFo's examples are used to test some of the errors they mentioned. To test their example, make sure to choose the pull down for both the string and main hands to make sure they are matching. After the deal, click to hold all cards and notice what the autopicker is choosing to place in the string hand. You can also test any other hands you have an interest in. We think we are close with the flush-straight flush logic for the autopicker, so if you notice anything else, please let me know.



Try the test hands here:
http://www.realizegamingllc.com/dev/stringPoker/

Quote: RealizeGaming

We have an update to the game based on some of the early feedback regarding which cards are used to upgrade the string hand. Babs and LoquaciousMoFo's examples are used to test some of the errors they mentioned. To test their example, make sure to choose the pull down for both the string and main hands to make sure they are matching. After the deal, click to hold all cards and notice what the autopicker is choosing to place in the string hand. You can also test any other hands you have an interest in. We think we are close with the flush-straight flush logic for the autopicker, so if you notice anything else, please let me know.



Try the test hands here:
http://www.realizegamingllc.com/dev/stringPoker/

Ok. I'm vain enough to spend some time on something with my name on it. Lol...

I played for about an hour. I only saw one very minor issue (math-wise) Top hand 36Jc. Bottom hand Kc9cKh etc. Game replaced the 6c with the 9c. Should have been the Kc. Equal value this hand, more value overall because game can progress that to a RF. Not that it would have on that actual hand.

When game evaluates 2 cards to be equally valuable, it seems to select the left-most to move up. I think the 9c was left of the Kc, and I expect if the cards were slotted the other way, it would have selected the Kc.

Otherwise logic is much stronger. Good follow-up, guys!

Quote: beachbumbabs

[
Ok. I'm vain enough to spend some time on something with my name on it. Lol...

I played for about an hour. I only saw one very minor issue (math-wise) Top hand 36Jc. Bottom hand Kc9cKh etc. Game replaced the 6c with the 9c. Should have been the Kc. Equal value this hand, more value overall because game can progress that to a RF. Not that it would have on that actual hand.

When game evaluates 2 cards to be equally valuable, it seems to select the left-most to move up. I think the 9c was left of the Kc, and I expect if the cards were slotted the other way, it would have selected the Kc.

Otherwise logic is much stronger. Good follow-up, guys!

Heh, apparently I'm vain too, but only a half-hours worth, so only half as vain as BBB ;-)
I agree that the pick'em procedure is much more robust. Previously, I'd often rage-quit in about 30 minutes, but didn't encounter a quit-inducing error this session.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: RealizeGaming

We have an update to the game based on some of the early feedback regarding which cards are used to upgrade the string hand. Babs and LoquaciousMoFo's examples are used to test some of the errors they mentioned. To test their example, make sure to choose the pull down for both the string and main hands to make sure they are matching. After the deal, click to hold all cards and notice what the autopicker is choosing to place in the string hand. You can also test any other hands you have an interest in. We think we are close with the flush-straight flush logic for the autopicker, so if you notice anything else, please let me know.



Try the test hands here:
http://www.realizegamingllc.com/dev/stringPoker/

Ok. I'm vain enough to spend some time on something with my name on it. Lol...

I played for about an hour. I only saw one very minor issue (math-wise) Top hand 36Jc. Bottom hand Kc9cKh etc. Game replaced the 6c with the 9c. Should have been the Kc. Equal value this hand, more value overall because game can progress that to a RF. Not that it would have on that actual hand.

When game evaluates 2 cards to be equally valuable, it seems to select the left-most to move up. I think the 9c was left of the Kc, and I expect if the cards were slotted the other way, it would have selected the Kc.

Otherwise logic is much stronger. Good follow-up, guys!

Thanks Babs! We apologize for taking advantage of your vain personality trait, but we are happy you had a chance to go back and give it some play.

Keep an eye on this thread as we may be updating a few more deal possibilities to test the autopicker. We think we caught most of them, but there might be some others that people find, so please post if you find anything.

Quote: LoquaciousMoFW

Quote: beachbumbabs

[
Ok. I'm vain enough to spend some time on something with my name on it. Lol...

I played for about an hour. I only saw one very minor issue (math-wise) Top hand 36Jc. Bottom hand Kc9cKh etc. Game replaced the 6c with the 9c. Should have been the Kc. Equal value this hand, more value overall because game can progress that to a RF. Not that it would have on that actual hand.

When game evaluates 2 cards to be equally valuable, it seems to select the left-most to move up. I think the 9c was left of the Kc, and I expect if the cards were slotted the other way, it would have selected the Kc.

Otherwise logic is much stronger. Good follow-up, guys!

Heh, apparently I'm vain too, but only a half-hours worth, so only half as vain as BBB ;-)
I agree that the pick'em procedure is much more robust. Previously, I'd often rage-quit in about 30 minutes, but didn't encounter a quit-inducing error this session.

LoquaciousMoFW, we have no issues with vain players. Thanks for helping us out. We really appreciate it.

Another update to the game.

We added another pull down to the game to check to make sure the autopicker is making the correct choices.

http://www.realizegamingllc.com/dev/stringPoker/

We've also started doing the simulations for the game and after 9 million rounds the game is paying out just under 100%.

Quote: RealizeGaming

Another update to the game.

We added another pull down to the game to check to make sure the autopicker is making the correct choices.

http://www.realizegamingllc.com/dev/stringPoker/

We've also started doing the simulations for the game and after 9 million rounds the game is paying out just under 100%.

Not surprising that the payouts increased since the auto picker got better. I assume your sims are using DDB strategy still? I’ll bet optimal strategy taking into account cards for string hand make this +EV at the current oaytables.

Finally noticed an odd pick.

Existing bonus: 4c3s4s

Picked 6d from winning hand, and evicted the 3s, breaking flush, open-ended straight, and open-ended straight flush draw, leaving 3OAK, and inside straight draw.

Bonus pick reason: This string hand is almost a Three of a Kind! + almost straight & 4 other similar option(s) were considered.

Quote: unJon

Quote: RealizeGaming

Another update to the game.

We added another pull down to the game to check to make sure the autopicker is making the correct choices.

http://www.realizegamingllc.com/dev/stringPoker/

We've also started doing the simulations for the game and after 9 million rounds the game is paying out just under 100%.

Not surprising that the payouts increased since the auto picker got better. I assume your sims are using DDB strategy still? I’ll bet optimal strategy taking into account cards for string hand make this +EV at the current oaytables.

Correct. We are using the DDB strategy.

It should be really close to 100% by the time we are done, but I don't see it going over 100%. We should know if a couple of days.

Quote: LoquaciousMoFW

Finally noticed an odd pick.

Existing bonus: 4c3s4s

Picked 6d from winning hand, and evicted the 3s, breaking flush, open-ended straight, and open-ended straight flush draw, leaving 3OAK, and inside straight draw.

Bonus pick reason: This string hand is almost a Three of a Kind! + almost straight & 4 other similar option(s) were considered.

Do you remember what else you had in the hand to choose from? I'm just curious.

This may be another situation where the autopicker wants to keep the winning pair multiplier because if it removes one of the fours it will result in no multiplier and it would be taking a step backwards in order to build toward a straight flush.

Quote: RealizeGaming

Do you remember what else you had in the hand to choose from? I'm just curious.

This may be another situation where the autopicker wants to keep the winning pair multiplier because if it removes one of the fours it will result in no multiplier and it would be taking a step backwards in order to build toward a straight flush.

Sorry, don't remember other cards exactly, but were a bunch of diamonds and hearts (QhQd was winning pair IIRC). The autopicker made the bonus hand worse for no reason I can discern. Correct action IMO would have been to leave the existing bonus hand unchanged at 4c3s4s.

I guess I am wondering why the program thought 4c6d4s was a better hold than 4c3s4s.

Quote: LoquaciousMoFW

Sorry, don't remember other cards exactly, but were a bunch of diamonds and hearts (QhQd was winning pair IIRC). The autopicker made the bonus hand worse for no reason I can discern. Correct action IMO would have been to leave the existing bonus hand unchanged at 4c3s4s.

I guess I am wondering why the program thought 4c6d4s was a better hold than 4c3s4s.

I recently had a similar situation. I think this is still a lingering issue from when switching a card into the string hand gave a +1.

Quote: RealizeGaming

Quote: unJon

Quote: RealizeGaming

Another update to the game.

We added another pull down to the game to check to make sure the autopicker is making the correct choices.

http://www.realizegamingllc.com/dev/stringPoker/

We've also started doing the simulations for the game and after 9 million rounds the game is paying out just under 100%.

Not surprising that the payouts increased since the auto picker got better. I assume your sims are using DDB strategy still? I’ll bet optimal strategy taking into account cards for string hand make this +EV at the current oaytables.

Correct. We are using the DDB strategy.

It should be really close to 100% by the time we are done, but I don't see it going over 100%. We should know if a couple of days.

I’m saying that if it’s close to 100% with DDB strategy, it is likely more than 100% playing optimal strategy. Because DDB is not the best way to play the game. See prior Gordon posts on this topic.

Quote: unJon

Quote: RealizeGaming

Correct. We are using the DDB strategy.

I’m saying that if it’s close to 100% with DDB strategy, it is likely more than 100% playing optimal strategy. Because DDB is not the best way to play the game. See prior Gordon posts on this topic.

No, the String Multiplier DDB game simulations are NOT using the standard DDB strategy - no matter what RealizeGaming thinks/says.

I did a detailed compare between the posted statistics for the 1B-trial simulation of the String Multiplier Game and the WOO return table for standard DDB. The player outcomes are not the same.

1. The STRING Multiplier game simulation makes a winning (non-Losing hand) about 0.5% more often than with standard DDB strategy.

2. The STRING Multiplier game makes the Quad Aces hand at a frequency of about 70% of what is expected with standard DDB strategy.

3. Royal flushes, straight flushes and quads of all types occur less frequently for player in the STRING Multiplier simulation than with standard DDB strategy as posted in WOO.

The differences I see in statistical outcomes from the Standard DDB WOO return tables are completely consistent in every way with the use (in the string multiplier simulations) of a mathematically optimum strategy for player in which discard/hold options are chosen to increase the probability of maintaining the string (higher probabiulity of winning) while sometimes foregoing discard options that have higher EV but lower probability of winning because they are based on rare chances of making royals, straight flushes, and quads.
****************
There is a second conceivable way to improve such a strategy so as to further increase player EV, which involves factoring in the effect of your HELD cards on your ability to get a higher multiplier in the subsequent round. (Like, holding onto a Qd when the Bonus hand is AdKdX.) I have not yet determined whether the 1B trials simulation of String Multiplier also assumed that player was doing this as well. I think I have figured out a clever way to analyze the simulation results for that - but it requires some work, and I haven't had much time recently. Honestly, I've been hoping that RealizeGaming would just report accurately on the player strategy used in the 1B trials simulation.

Gordon, thank you for your post. Very insightful and that’s obviously the better way to run the simulations (and any casino would demand simulations using optimal play to calculate the HE and hold before approving the game).

Quote: unJon

I recently had a similar situation. I think this is still a lingering issue from when switching a card into the string hand gave a +1.

UnJon and LoquaciousMoFW,

The updated game link should have the fix for the 4c6d4s situation you mentioned.

http://www.realizegamingllc.com/dev/stringPoker/

Thanks for pointing it out for us.

Quote: gordonm888

No, the String Multiplier DDB game simulations are NOT using the standard DDB strategy - no matter what RealizeGaming thinks/says.

I did a detailed compare between the posted statistics for the 1B-trial simulation of the String Multiplier Game and the WOO return table for standard DDB. The player outcomes are not the same.

1. The STRING Multiplier game simulation makes a winning (non-Losing hand) about 0.5% more often than with standard DDB strategy.

2. The STRING Multiplier game makes the Quad Aces hand at a frequency of about 70% of what is expected with standard DDB strategy.

3. Royal flushes, straight flushes and quads of all types occur less frequently for player in the STRING Multiplier simulation than with standard DDB strategy as posted in WOO.

The differences I see in statistical outcomes from the Standard DDB WOO return tables are completely consistent in every way with the use (in the string multiplier simulations) of a mathematically optimum strategy for player in which discard/hold options are chosen to increase the probability of maintaining the string (higher probabiulity of winning) while sometimes foregoing discard options that have higher EV but lower probability of winning because they are based on rare chances of making royals, straight flushes, and quads.
****************
There is a second conceivable way to improve such a strategy so as to further increase player EV, which involves factoring in the effect of your HELD cards on your ability to get a higher multiplier in the subsequent round. (Like, holding onto a Qd when the Bonus hand is AdKdX.) I have not yet determined whether the 1B trials simulation of String Multiplier also assumed that player was doing this as well. I think I have figured out a clever way to analyze the simulation results for that - but it requires some work, and I haven't had much time recently. Honestly, I've been hoping that RealizeGaming would just report accurately on the player strategy used in the 1B trials simulation.

gordonm888,

I apologize for not providing an answer to your question earlier. We are using a basic 16 rule strategy for the game. I understand there are a ton of different options for playing the optimal strategy for double double bonus so it is not perfect, but definitely provides us with a working game concept which we can show to gaming companies. We have been told to get the math somewhere in the ball park for the game and the company would be able to fine tune it. We've had several companies tell us the exact same thing so we try to get it as close as we can.

I would love to include the Wizards DDB strategy into our game to make it even more accurate, but we haven't done it at this point as we have been told that what we are doing right now is all that is needed.

Also, the autopicker doesn't take into consideration the idea of holding additional non-winning cards in the main hand for the purpose of upgrading the string hand to a bigger multiplier. I do think players would do that on the occasions, but our game math doesn't take that into consideration.

Hopefully that answers some of your questions. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Thanks again for taking the time to discuss the game!

One of my testers was over the other day and we were messing around with String Multiplier Poker. He managed to have two good runs that I wanted to share. The first pick he was able to get a four of a kind x4 after winning four consecutive hands.



The second picture was really interesting as he was able to play 12 hands in a row and in the process he built a string royal for a x50 multiplier. In our 1 billion simulations, the highest number of consecutive hands record was 22 in a row.



If you want to play the game the link is located here. Please share any great hands you get!
String Multiplier Poker - https://www.realizegamingllc.com/demo/stringPoker/2/